Chapter 3: Theory

In this chapter I will give a broader definition of reconstruction and we will talk about the problems and possible solutions we will encounter in our projects. In order to do good reconstructions yourself, you need to understand what they really are and the methodology behind them.

What is an archaeological reconstruction?

Reconstruction is the act of recreating something that has been lost. In our case, we want to reconstruct ancient architecture and we need to find ways of doing this in a scientific way. Other words for reconstruction may be restoration, reconstitution, simulation, recreation, replication, interpretation, projection or realisation. The term is important, but what is more important is to understand that a reconstruction is always fictional, no matter how good an archaeologist or reconstruction specialist you are. The question remains how fictional a reconstruction is.

The part that makes a reconstruction archaeological is not only the content (so what are you reconstructing), but also the methodology. As scientists, we need to make sure that we follow some basic rules to produce results that are understandable, repeatable and well thought out. So we try to do a scientific reconstruction. Like a scientific paper, a scientific reconstruction must be reproducible, understandable and transparent. The purpose of a reconstruction can be varied, but in most cases it is to communicate a theory and/or knowledge. The audience is also heterogeneous, as reconstructions can be made for children, museum visitors or archaeological colleagues.

Look at the picture on the side. What do you see? You don't need to know exactly what the site is, but try to look at it like an interested 19th century observer. You have just heard that the ancient Assyrians, people you only knew from the Bible and contemporary art, have been discovered and that this picture shows how they might have lived 2,000 years ago. Until now, you had the impression that the Assyrians were destroyed by "the wrath of God", as depicted in the famous paintings by John Martin: The Fall of Nineveh (1829) or Eugène Delacroix: The Death of Sardanapalus (1827). How do you think you would have perceived this painting?

Further Reading

• Hageneuer, S. 2015: Archaeological Reconstructions (Online article on Smarthstoryblog.org).
• Hageneuer, S. 2019: »Without Drawing the Study of Antiquities is Lame!« – Architektur-Rekonstruktion als wissenschaftliches Tool? In: Der Modelle Tugend 2.0 - Digitale 3D-Rekonstruktion als virtueller Raum der architekturhistorischen Forschung, herausgegeben von Piotr Kuroczyński, Mieke Pfarr-Harfst, und Sander Münster, 2:203–12. Computing in Art and Architecture. Heidelberg: arthistoricum.net.
• Hodgson, J. 2002: Archaeological Reconstruction: Illustrating the Past. IFA Paper 5. Reading: Institute of Field Archaeologists.
• James, S. 1997: „Drawing Inferences. Visual reconstruction in theory and practice“. In: Cultural Life of Images. Visual Representation in Archaeology, herausgegeben von B.L. Molyneaux, 22–48. Oxfordshire: Routledge.

Types of reconstructions

There are basically three types of reconstruction, although the distinction is somewhat arbitrary. In any case, it serves as a good basis for structuring reconstructions in some way. In our course, we are mainly concerned with 2D reconstructions, although paradoxically we are also producing 3D models. It is only when we experience our reconstruction in 3D software or virtual reality that we can speak of a truly digital three-dimensional reconstruction.

Physical Reconstructions

Physical reconstructions are three-dimensional reconstructions, but they are not virtual or digital. They therefore have much in common with the last category in this list. However, they are different from the physical manifestation and therefore have physical limitations. Physical reconstructions are open-air museums, such as the reconstruction of a [medieval castle in Guédelon] (https://www.guedelon.fr/en/de/), France. Scientists there use only medieval techniques and slowly build a castle that you can visit and help. We also have something similar here in Xanten, where you can visit reconstructions of a Roman town. Another type in this category are the scale models you often see in museums or exhibitions. Sometimes these models are made of wood and paper, sometimes they are printed with a 3D printer.

2D Reconstructions (Drawings, CGI)

2D reconstructions are basically all those images that you can put on paper and therefore have a 2D character. This is true even for printed 3D renderings, because when you look at a printed 3D reconstruction on paper, you cannot move around the model like you can with a physical reconstruction or a real 3D model. 2D reconstructions are mainly used to present visualisations in printed publications or on the web (although the latter [can also do 3D] (https://kompakkt.de/home)). The quality of these images varies greatly, from simple sketches on paper to elaborate 3D renderings with photorealistic textures. The quality of the image says nothing about the verisimilitude of the model. They are basically ideas put on paper. This sub-group also includes 2D animations, where you simply see a fly-over of a reconstruction. Although you can look around a reconstruction, you usually don't have any control over the movement, so again you're limited to watching on a flat 2D screen. Some examples of animations can be found here.

3D Reconstructions (Virtual Models, Virtual Reality)

True 3D reconstructions are models that you can move around freely. This can be in virtual reality or on a computer screen. The important thing is that there are no parts of a reconstruction that can be hidden and therefore invisible. So the reconstructions you create are 3D reconstructions, and only when you render and print them do they become 2D reconstructions.

Further Reading

• Bator, S./van Ess, M./Hageneuer, S. 2013: Visualisierung der Architektur von Uruk, in: Crüsemann, N. et al. (Hrsg.), Uruk - 5000 Jahre Megacity (Ausstellungskatalog), Petersberg, 365-371.
• Hageneuer, S. 2014: The visualisation of Uruk - First impressions of the first metropolis in the world, in: Börner, W./Uhrlitz, S. (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technologies, Wien.
• — 2016: Le Temple blanc d'Uruk sur sa haute terrasse, in: Quenet, P. (Hrsg.), Ana ziqquratim. Sur la piste de Babel (Ausstellungskatalog), Strasbourg, 112-113.
• — 2016: Die virtuelle Rekonstruktion von Pi-Ramesse, in: Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (Hrsg.), Ausstellungskatalog “Ramses - Göttlicher Herrscher am Nil”, 268-272.

Problem of Perception

A big problem we have in our reconstruction studies is the question of perception. As archaeologists we may be used to images like these, but we are not immune to misperception. When you see an archaeological reconstruction in an exhibition, publication or elsewhere, how certain are you about the reliability of the visualisation?

As beautiful as these images are, one obvious drawback is the subjectivity involved. To be more precise, it is the unknown amount of subjectivity involved in their creation. We do not know how good the artist was, or how much of a particular image is actually based on proven archaeological fact. We simply do not know how much we can rely on them (Adkins/Adkins 2009, 147; Golvin 2012, 77-82; Green 2012, 13-23). Moreover, elaborate reconstructions also convey a notion of authority, suggesting a non-existent reality or validity, whereas scientifically based reconstructions should be a mere suggestion or proposal. Placed in a museum or on television, these reconstructions are often accepted by the public without hesitation.

We also need to understand that there are different levels of sources and reliability. The more reliable sources we use for our reconstruction, the better the reconstruction will be. On the other hand, we can't really do a reconstruction without some speculation. So we have to find ways to illustrate our reliability and levels of sources.

Reliability

Further Reading

• Adkins, L./Adkins, R.A. 2009: Archaeological Illustration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Golvin, J.-C. 2012: Drawing Reconstruction Images of Ancient Site. In: Jack Green, E. Teeter, J.A. Larson (Eds.), Picturing the Past. Imaging and Imagining the Ancient Middle East, Chicago, 77–82.
• Green, J. 2012: Introduction. In: Jack Green, E. Teeter, J.A. Larson (Eds.), Picturing the Past. Imaging and Imagining the Ancient Middle East, Chicago, 13–23.
• Hageneuer, S. 2015: Bilder vergangener Kulturen - Architektur-Rekonstruktionen in der Vorderasiatischen Archäologie des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, Alter Orient Aktuell 13/2015, 4-9.
• — 2016: The influence of early architectural reconstruction drawings in Near Eastern Archaeology, in: Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE), Wiesbaden, 359-370.

Possible solutions

Of course, we are not the first to have thought of this problem, and there is a whole sub-group within reconstruction studies that is concerned with finding the right methodologies to produce reconstructions. One result of this group was published in 2006: [The London Charter for Computer-Based Visualisation of Cultural Heritage] (http://www.londoncharter.org/). Four paragraphs are of particular interest to us:

• 4.4 It should be made clear to users what a computer-based visualisation is intended to represent, for example, the existing condition, an evidence-based restoration or a hypothetical reconstruction of a cultural heritage object or site, and the extent and nature of any factual uncertainty.
• 4.5 A full list of research sources used and their provenance should be disseminated.
• 4.6 Documentation of the evaluative, analytical, deductive, interpretative and creative decisions made in the course of computer-based visualisation should be disseminated in such a way that the relationship between research sources, implicit knowledge, explicit reasoning, and visualisation-based outcomes can be understood.
• 4.8 A description of the visualisation methods should be disseminated if they are not likely to be widely understood within the relevant communities of practice.

In 2011 there was another meeting, this time in Seville, and the outcome of that meeting was a more defined set of principles: The Seville Principles - International Principles for Virtual Archaeology:

• 4.2 In the case of virtual restorations or reconstructions, the different levels of accuracy on which the restoration or reconstruction is based shall be indicated explicitly or through additional interpretations.
• 4.3 As many archaeological remains have been and are being restored or reconstructed, computer-based visualisation should really help both professionals and the public to distinguish clearly between: remains that have been preserved "in situ"; remains that have been returned to their original position (real anastylosis); areas that have been partially or completely rebuilt on the original remains; and, finally, areas that have been virtually restored or reconstructed.

In order for us to follow these rules, and at the same time follow our curriculum, we will use a [Reconstruction Protocol] (chapter03/protocol) to document our process. When you start your project, you will be given a template to fill in all the steps of your project. The protocol has been designed to be very detailed in some respects, but not to take too much time away from your reconstruction process.

Try to think about what you have read. What reconstructions are and how they are communicated, and what you can do when creating your own reconstructions to ensure that your results are documented, communicated and presented as well as possible.

Additional

• Reconstruction Protocol